Articles

   In The Name of God

1

Answer to Hume

     Abstract

The new linguistic approach for solving the problem of induction is examined. The main matter is to investigate the Hume's claim. And to see what he really has claimed. It will be revealed that the language contains information and the equivalents of Hume's claim are pursued. Also, the consequences of Hume's claim in other philosophical topics will be investigated.   

Introduction

 The problem of induction is one of most controversial problems in philosophy. It first exposed to discussion by David Hume as it is said, but at least its equivalences were known by ancient Greece's philosophers. Anyway, it is known by Hume. Shortly, it can be explained so: Suppose that we observe many objects with characteristic α. All of them also possess the characteristic β. An individual normally conclude that any unobserved objects with characteristic α possess characteristic β. But Hume has doubted in this pace from unobserved to the observed objects. How do we know that the unobserved objects with characteristic α are the same with the observed one? Or equivalently, why future phenomena must follow the same regularity as the past? These questions and some other that all criticize one thing, the induction and have challenged many philosophers till now. Hume claimed that there is no reason to believe in induction and the propositions concluded by that. The problem of induction is to give reliable reason which makes induction reliable.

*The wrong in dividing propositions in priori and posteriori

There is a famous way of categorizing propositions that is as follows:

• Priori

Priori propositions are those which talk about information that is hidden in a given sentence or word.

For instance, we say: The material has volume, that in this case having volume is included in the notion of material. Such statements are definitely true and somehow they are tautology.

• Posteriori

Posteriori statements are those which talk about information that are out of the referred notion, thus are not definite.

• This is the categorization that is common and well known and accepted. But I have a criticism to this. The key idea of separating propositions into priori and posteriori is not the involvement, but assurances.  I mean the undoubtedly reliance on the propositions has led to this way of categorization. Priories are definitely true or more important; this is obvious that the result is extracted from the given sentence. But in posteriori propositions, this in not definite and the conclusion is based on induction, though Hume's claim is one that we are opposed with.

The equivalent categorization with the propositions to priori and posterior is to divide reasoning into induction and deduction. The deduction leads to priori knowledge and induction results posteriori one. But the point that is neglected here is that not all the posteriori propositions are indefinite. In addition to priori-posteriori (in Kant's point of view) there is another type of propositions which is definite but is not priori or deduced.

The previous way of dividing propositions and reasoning's base was in the propositions themselves. But the confidence in the propositions is not just due to kind of propositions, but to the point of view or the relative condition of observer to the propositions.

Let me explain that. Suppose you touch a hot object. The thing that will happen is that immediately you will pull back your hand. In an individual point of view except you the relation between hotness and pulling back the hand is obtained through induction, but in your point of view this is definite and needn’t to prove, and from this aspect this is like priori knowledge and deductive reasoning. In this way, the thing we feel inside is the relation between two phenomenon that are clear and needn’t induction. Then the sentence, I touched a hot object, then I pulled my hand back is definite and the sentence he touched a hot object, then he pulled his hand back is not definite.

Among all relations which we suppose between phenomena, all are inductively obtained, but those which we feel inside. They are somehow like deductively obtained and in this way certain.

Then when you feel something and react, we can say that you get a happenings reason by certain.

Thus, what if I say, this sort of experience that we call election is just the understanding the reason of a phenomenon? When you react or choose to do something by a reason, you are predicting true and definitely and thus understand a happening, not choose.

Anyway I introduce a new way to divide propositions. The propositions are divided in two:

• true by definite

• probable

We all are fond of the true by definite propositions. As I said the propositions we experience for one who experienced that is definitely true. The other sort of definitely true propositions are priories or equivalently tautological propositions. Then considering the Hume's problem, all kind of Propositions are probable but the experienced by person and the tautological ones.

A question arises out of this problem, that the matter of reliance and assurance to a proposition depends on our position or point of view. Let us just replace the word "I" with my name. Hamze touched a hot object, and then he pulled his hand back. This is of the first type for me and of the second type for the others.

If the quality of the propositions depends on our point of view, then may all be so. Now we have a dilemma. All propositions are definite from at least one point of view then all are definitely true or false. And all propositions except experienced by a person and tautological one is probable.

Highly skeptical approach is one that leads to definite answers if leads to any. For me all propositions are probable but what I mentioned.

Then there are two probable states.

• there are qualities for propositions independent to me.(those which because I experienced are definite were definite by themselves and though by me also were definite)

• The quality of propositions unless tautological one depends on me and their position relatively to me.

To judge between these two states, we must investigate that the notions definite and probable, by themselves are subjective or objective. If they are objective, then the proposition about the hot object were definite independent to me and also in my understanding. But what is the meaning of objective probable proposition? Has this any meaning? And about the subjective probable propositions means just unknown to me, may again be probable or definite.

It seems this second layer probable or definite is different with the first layer. In the first layer the matter was my knowledge, but in second layer the matter is reality. Now we divide the probable and definite in two classes. The subjective one, class 1 and the objective one, class 2.

The class one definite means the known relation between phenomena or notions. The probable class one is unknown relation between notions or phenomena. If there is any class two, the class one definite is definitely class two definite. But the probable class one can be both probable and definite class two. Now the question reduces to whether in class two there is one of probable or definite, or both or none of them or there is no such class.

By most skeptical approach, we have no evidence for the existence of such class, because there is no proof for the existence of the realm reality. For instance, in a dream no one can claim a necessary relation between water boiling and the stove flame's temperature. If there is no proof for that, there is also no proof for the any kind of probable class 1 that is definite in class two.

Then the state one fail to be proven to be true or false, though the second state.

So our knowledge doesn’t afford us to confirm one of these two states undoubtedly. At least in this approach the Hume problem remains unsolvable but reduced to the matter of reality.

Antirealist point of view that claims reality is unreachable includes the position in which there can be no judge between two states. But about the realistic point of view we must survey that is reality concept includes relation between phenomena or not. In a naturalistic approach to realism, the scientific new theories like relativity emphasize on relations or rules as real part of nature, rather than phenomena and phenomena are supposed illusions but relations or more binary rules are real and not changing. Then in a naturalistic approach to realism the Hume problem is answered, but the problem is that Hume problem is the first dilemma the two approach realism and antirealism meet and separate, and now we are trying to solve the first question with the last conflict. In other words, the realist has accepted that there is a sufficient answer to Hume problem (but not answered).

Anyway the Hume problem has tied with the matter of reality. But if we can prove that reality realm, in case that it exist, contain the necessary relation in it between phenomena or objects, the matter of Hume's problem just reduces to the reality postulate that for many is just trivial.

*The Heirloom of Language 1

What if tomorrow the sun rises from the west? Hume asks so. He states that there is no necessity that the sun does the same as it did before. Also, everything else is so. For instance, there is no necessity that the next time that you drop a stone, it goes downward. Maybe it floats in the air or maybe it goes upward.

Generally, Hume claims that there is no necessity that nature at future behaves as the same pattern as it did before.

Hume claims that there is no necessity that tomorrow the sun rises from east, and it can rise from west or north or even not rise.

Question:

What is the sun?

Is not the sun what that rises every day from the east?

What is east?

Is not east where the sun rises every day?

What is to rise?

Is not the verb uses to appoint the emerging of a shiny object every day from the east?

And at last what is day?

Is not day the situation in which sun rises from east and comes up the sky and also you can see things clearly.

From these questions I mean the point that has neglected opposing Hume's question is the words are not just the labels we stick on the objects. They carry information. Each word is knowledge that has gained through observation of generations and also the language as a whole make a structure that transform knowledge through generations. We call part of this knowledge as culture, but a part has neglected the part that carries basic information of physical world.

May the example of the sunrise is not sufficient for the explanation of this matter. Because most of us think that our interpretation of the word "sun" is independent of where it rises from.

Suppose that tomorrow the sun rises blue, or black, or rectangle or when it rises the sky is still dark and it swing on the sky in triangle shape in gray. Is this the sun anymore?

It seems that the word sun is the result of the persistence of some features together on the sky as a golden circle at least. If the other feature like rising from the east is part of this notion or not is controversial. But the matter that is important is without the persistence of features, whether wholly or local, there was no word "sun". Then the word sun contains in itself the knowledge that every day such globe rises from the east.

If we expand this claim, we can say, if there were no order, there were no language.

Then when Hume claims that what if the nature at future do not follow the pattern as before, we say that if the nature was behaving so, there would be no language, because the language itself is the reflection of that pattern in a linguistic structure. In the other word, language is born from the pattern, and if there were no pattern, there would be no language, and if there is no language, there is no question.

But Hume didn’t claim that there was no pattern. He asks what if from this second go on, the pattern change, or there will be no pattern? I deliberately refused to emphasize on the word "necessity" and now I am going to investigate what if the pattern suddenly change, or disappear.

If we can show this is impossible, we have showed that there is necessary that the same pattern repeat at future.

The pattern can change in some way:

• If the pattern changes in a way that none of our words and verbs and any of our language elements comply with the new pattern, we cannot understand that world. It is like the world destroys or ends.

• If the pattern changes in a way that some binary words still work, then we understand that world a bit.

• If the pattern doesn't change, then there will be no problem.

The first and third condition seems not controversial, but the second one needs investigation.

Before dealing with these three, let us investigate the most general term of Hume's claim:

There is no necessity that nature at future behaves the same as it did before.

In this sentence some words are grandstanding.

• Necessity  2) nature 3) future 4) behave 5) the same 6) before

• The word necessity is a vague word. Because if you want to define it you must use the word probable, and if you want to define probable you need to use the word necessity. In fact you say each of them what is not another and both of them are vague. The language is full of such pairs.

In this case both probable and necessary are talking about the future and if a particular imagination about the future is not probable, is necessary and vice versa. From previous discussion we concluded that necessary or definite is known relation and probable is unknown one. From a sceptical point of view this approach is true.

• The word nature is all we perceive through time. Past and future pattern.

• The word future is what that not yet has to come. Like probable and necessary it make a pair with past (include now to the past)

• Behave refers to the pattern it follows.

• The same here is the same pattern, the known pattern. Because if it refers to unknown pattern this sentence is not falsifiable.

• Before is past that we mentioned.

Now let us investigate these words and their relations. There are two pairs, Past-future, necessary-probable. And there is a word nature that is the past and future pattern. Now let us rewrite the sentence in this way:

There is no necessity that past and future pattern in the future be the same pattern as past pattern.

Now replace the pairs instead of each other:

There is no necessity that past and future pattern in the future be the same pattern as not future pattern.

Or equivalently:

There is no necessity that future pattern be the same as not future pattern.

Now let us a bit surgery the word future and past. This pair is defined by each other, but also they can be defined individually. Future is what we imagine. In fact the word future is knowledge about nature that it has hidden something. Suppose the situation where there was no pair future and past in the language. In that case the question "how you know sun rise from east" seems silly. But this pair is knowledge about nature that it is parted in two. Revealed and hidden. Of course we just can have imagination about hidden part. And imagination is different with what we perceive. The proposition that the imagination will not necessarily be the same with future is somehow hidden in the meaning of the word future. If future was definite, then what is the distinction between the future and the past or how did we distinguish it? But also there is an imagination about future and that is not so that we are completely away from that. Anyway this pair is bound to the pair probable and necessary. If we accept that the word future is the knowledge of the probable, hidden, or imagined and not yet complied with part of the nature, then we must confirm that future in definition is probable and the past as definition is necessary. All detectors seek one crime story, not two and this is so obvious that can be counted as the main feature of the past that is definite or necessary. Accepting this information in these words, the sentence reforms as:

There is no necessity that not necessary pattern be the same as necessary pattern.

And equivalently:

There is no necessity that future be the same as past.

Or

Future is not past.

And it is obviously true and is tautology.

In the other hand we said definite is known relation and probable is unknown. This time replacing process for the sentence "this is probable that sun will rise from east" leads to this:

There is unknown relation between sun and rising from the east.

Though we defined known relation to tautological and self-perceived one, obviously the sun rises from east is not included in definite propositions.

At the beginning of the article we said that the words are the knowledge that transform from a generation to another of the pattern of the nature and thus the Hume statement seem to be wrong, because he is denying language by means of language. For instance, when he say what if tomorrow sun rise in blue from the north, is equivalent to say what if sun be not sun anymore. And this is under questioning language information. But we next added that knowledge we have reached that the nature has a hidden part, which may deny our knowledge. That Today sun is a notion and yesterday sun is another. And may the hidden part be completely different. The knowledge of hidden part of nature or the future means that the perceptions we receive have capability to appear in completely different arrangement so that our language or our knowledge from nature completely collapses. But this warn also has been given to us through our language by the notion future, that means one that can be anything or probable.

One may ask, if the future means probable how many supposed that as definite?

We answer one can utter black is white that is meaningless. Also one can utter future is definite, then revealed but he know that it is hidden and probable. This is just to utter nonsense and Hume unveiled the truth of language that is our predecessors heir and obvious.

Difference between necessary and probable world

Suppose that I sit at the end of time and the world is behind me and somehow miraculously I have observed every detail of the world and all world history is in my memory.

Now for such me, what is the difference between the necessary and probable world?

The necessary world maybe one that must be so determinedly and the probable world is one that have been so by chance.

Firstly it is proper to be mentioned that these two states or claim about that world is not falsifiable. Any sort of world history can be claimed that was determined or so by chance. Then this argument is just logical and linguistic.

Reducing the world necessary to known and probable to unknown seem best way to deal with these two. Then necessary world is one that is known from the beginning and the probable is the unknown one. Now the problem is to define knowing. If knowing only true case is what we feel, then the case of touching the hot object is what we really know, though definite, but the other propositions are not definite and consequently probable and unknown.

If the world is definite, then it must be known in every detail from the beginning. First there must be a relation between the future and the past in that world. Because if future is known from the beginning, then part of that must exist in the past. Then this determined world demand another world exist behind it, the world of relations. Now again the problem arises, is that world, the relation phase definite or probable or known or unknown. If this is known, there must be something to be known.

Then the determined world demands the existence of the laws of nature.

*The Heirloom of Language 2

More precisely now we go deep in the language. We concluded that the language is the consequence of regularity. If there is no regularity, there will be no words. Now suppose that we are watching a screen. This screen is our world. For a moment, there is a shape on the screen. If that be completely dark there will be one word for that. Suppose that there is no border for this screen to appoint to this or that corner of the screen. (There is a condition in that there is no word for that and that is when we cannot distinguish the equivalency of the perceptions we receive that is chaos itself). Now suppose some shapes appear and disappear on the screen. Each one could have a name, but the name never be used again. But the word purpose is to show unity and extension or distribution of a quality or mood, not just in one case. Though when I say this is A, there is a distinction between this and A and the A must proceed the emerged phenomenon. For a word at least there must be two of that case. But the problem is a bit more complicated. For instance, suppose the word shape. It implies in very distinguishable from each other phenomena, but there must be a unity or feature there that the word implies on. Mathematically it will be so. Each word is a set, in the space of our perception data and it implies on the persistence of that set.

By N binary data we have infinite sets that are our possible words. The nature regularity allows some sets, like the sun. And these sets are some included in the others.

When we build a sentence, we combine the set of words and the sentence implies a more detailed regularity. In fact a sentence is like a word and shows regularity. We can replace every sentence with a world and most words with a sentence. For instance, the word sun is equivalent with the sentence "a golden globe rises from east every day". And the sentence "earth gather round the Sun" with a word like Egather that imply this motion.

I mean of this discussion that the Hume problem is not just about the sentences but also words. Every word is under attack by that problem.

Thus it can be said that the comprehended world's regularity is equivalent with our language. This could be more, and then we would have more words and less, then there would be less words. Now Hume asks why this degree of regularity exists. It could be asked with any amount of regularity exist.

Conclusion

• In first section we concluded that the problem of Hume is tied with the matter of reality. If reality exists, it must be investigated that is that realm implies necessary relation between phenomena or not.

• From the second part we reached that the Hume claim is tautology and one who denies it is just stating contradiction. And what Hume claims is knowledge that is hidden in language.

• In third part we caught that for a determined world, there must be existed a space or realm in which the laws exist.

• From fourth section we reached that the language is equivalent with the comprehended nature and its regularity. As the regularity is more massive, the language will be so.

Combining the results 1 and 3 we reach that the space of reality is the space of laws and relations. Then accepting the realism principle, the Hume problem is solved. By this conclusion we know that there is relations and laws exist in the realm of reality, but not necessarily those relations we discern in phenomena phase. Anyway, accepting the existence of reality, the Hume problem is solved.

At the end I must announce that the language is not an empty system for the defining and categorizing phenomena, but inside it has cumulated knowledge, Knowledge about nature as words sun, star, jungle, Knowledge of psychology through the words like Love, Hate, Limbo etc. these knowledge is different in different languages and cultures as the nations which assembled these languages had different situation and experiments.

The way a nation all together choose for life, and the way they think encoded in language and transferred to the next generation and this process has continued till know. Some languages are wiser, some are more kind, and some that passes a full of suffer and stress history, may be more caution, hateful or full of fear. Anyway I announce this as a Hypothesis that the language carries information, and expands. In this way, Hume's work or Freud or Newton's theory about nature, may just was hidden in their language and they just revealed it.

All of us think in the land of our languages with all its ups and downs.

Though better language, will lead to better thinking, though better human.

END

Abstract

Is there any border between physics and metaphysics? is physics foundation based on metaphysics or these two are completely different and separated from each other? I am going to discuss about these questions in this article. First I define physics and metaphysics. after explaining the historical evidences, I will introduce different types of relationships between physics and metaphysics that are probable. I will discuss about the reasonability of different ideas about this matter and at the end I will suggest my own idea about the relationship between physics and metaphysics.

Key words: metaphysics, physics, sense data, instrumentalism

Introduction

Since the beginning, the human kind were eager to know. May this be part of evolutionary process of human kind and building models for the nature was necessary for our survival and may not. May this be just the way our mind deal with its own problems by creating models. Anyway, we think about all things as we done it since the beginning. In this way we human created metaphysics at the very beginning of our thinking. The story of the gods, spirits and so on that our primitive ancestors saw the world in those frames. Yes, metaphysic is old, very older than the physics. For thousands of years that was only metaphysics (it is called myth, but there is no difference as I explain latter) that shaped human ideas and created cultures. Suddenly in part of the world something new emerged. Some people began to criticize these stories. These people were the one of the Greek. They began to ask questions. The new era began. The age of philosophy. But in this age also the concern was the stories of the ancient just in new way. The subject was metaphysics again, but with different shape. They didn’t say gods anymore. But they said the reason. In topic, it was not so different from the age of myth. The questions were the same, but this time they dealt with the subject more precise and more reasonable.

Till early that new philosophers like David Hume and John Lock began to questioning the foundation of metaphysics. Kant also tried to mix the English and Germany tradition of philosophy. But he more tends to English philosophy and his effort to involve German tradition to empiricism was shown that was in vain. He offered a kind of statement that was both priori and posteriori. But time revealed that there are no such statements. This statement meant to save metaphysics, but they couldn’t and at last metaphysics fell beyond our access.

Parallel to these attempts, there were some newborn methods of thinking, more or less complying with these new philosophies, based on mathematics and observation, and very powerful. This new method was physics. Now there is struggle weather physics is completely separated from metaphysics and is pure or there are at least some metaphysical claims poured in it. Is this comply with the empiricism completely and a pure non-metaphysical knowledge or not? This is important because if it contains metaphysical claims, then it contains some axioms that are beyond our knowledge. Now that’s better to define physics and metaphysics.

Definition of physics and metaphysics and their differences

Before defining physics and metaphysics, first I must illuminate a matter. There are two arenas in the philosophy. The perception and the theories. The perception is all things that we perceive without any interpretation or change. The thing we perceive I call sense data. The sense data are the arena we live in. and the other realm is the realm of theories or stories. The realm of theories is behind the sense data. And the theories are the way we understand or unify the sense data.

The first question arises here is that, is there any clear border between sense data and theory? And there is a matter here that the theories are different from the judgements. I will explain it latter. For instance, suppose that you see some objects, like some trees and animals. You receive some sense data and your mind evaluate them and build a 3D space with identifying those objects kinds (trees and animals). And one may think about that were these all came from. Now there are three steps that have been done. The first is to receiving data. The second is judgement amongst data and the third is making theory. There is difference between judgement and theory. For instance, suppose that you have sit opposing a white wall. Or absolute darkness. You see unified white or black. If there was no judgement you couldn’t see anything. Even gazing at absolute darkness is to seeing something. The mind judge that the different part of the scene has the same color or in a picture they are different. Judgement is to compromise different data with each other and conclude some necessary theorem from them. Judgement is referring to internal relations between sense data and theory is beyond them. Then we can name different sort of packed data. The next level is to build theories upon these judged data. There is a notion "existence" that I don’t know what is its origin. But all the theories are based on this notion that may has come from induction. The theories(metaphysical) are beyond our sense data. There is a problem here. There is no clear border between judgment and the theory. For instance, we perceive a tree. Is that tree a theory or a judgment? You know, the question is to discern what is our common sense. Is this judgment or theory? Or part of it is judgment and part of it is theory. Also physics and metaphysics. are they theories or judgments?

Different answers to these questions leads to different answers to the matter of physics and metaphysics and relation between them.

Now I define metaphysics. metaphysics is the realm of theories that is beyond sense data. But about physics we now are not sure which realm it belongs and there are different possibility or way of thinking about that which we will explain later.

Historical view

From the historical point of view, we should say that most physicists (if not all of them) had metaphysical concerns. All of them were eager to understand how the world really work or how it really consist of. Many thought that they are investigating the nature itself, and some knew that this is perceptual world that they are digging, but they optimistically believed that their findings are showing the world in our minds language or at least tell something about the world to us. For instance, Newton had some struggle with Leibnitz about the notion of time. Or Heisenberg was very fond of Plato ideas about nature reflected in Temaus. He referred his inspiration of that book in his memories.

Albert Einstein was also interested in philosophy. He may have read Newton-Leibnitz struggle about time. Most physicists' claims that they are talking about the nature. What is its origin, what is it consist of and what is its future? Then we see that physicists have metaphysical questions and this is their motivation. But it doesn’t prove that physics fundamentally include metaphysics. This is more depend on how we define it and how we define or what is the border between sense data, judgment and theory. But this is obvious that most physicists seek some metaphysical claims of physics.

The border between sense data, judgment and theory(metaphysical)

We defined sense data as the data we receive, judgment as the comparison between the sense data and seeking relation between them and also manage them as a comprehendible world. And theory is a statement that is beyond sense data and its consequences as judgments. then we defined metaphysics as a study and claim about the theories that are beyond sense data.

• The border between sense data and judgment is not clear. Because for instance if you pull out all judgment from a pack of data, for example, the experience of a white wall, there remain nothing. You can't say this part of wall has the same color with that part. Because this is a judgment. And without this judgment it seems we have no data.

• The border between judgment and the theory is not clear. For instance, suppose a tree. I do not know this is a judgment or a theory. The action to pack some data through time as an individual and unique is a metaphysical claim or a judgment and to just manage data?

The difference between data and judgment is not important for our purpose.

But the border between judgment and theory is important and lead us to the meaning and origin of physics.

This is obvious that physics is based on common sense, at least it presupposes the uniqueness and individuality of the objects. And the physics is based on this. Then we have two ways:

• uniqueness and individuality of the objects is judgment.

• Uniqueness and individuality of the objects is theory.

In first case physics has no metaphysical foundation due to this matter or is not based on metaphysical claims. And if the second one be true, then physics is based on metaphysics.

Another metaphysical claim or theory that physics is based on it is the consistency of the patterns in nature. This was the one Hume attacked.

Then there are two approaches to this matter:

• Physics don’t tell anything about future and is just about the past and now.

• Physics predict for us.

Then for non-metaphysical physics we must assume that the uniqueness is raised from the judgments and also physics don’t predict for us, or in the other word, there is no necessity in physics.

There are some mathematical postulates that also has presupposed in physics.

As the differential postulates. These cannot be metaphysical.

This was about weather physics is based on metaphysical foundation or not that we concluded that this is depends on the border between judgment and the theory and also the way we look at the matter of prediction.

For completely explain the relationship between physics and metaphysics we must investigate the matter of physical theorem that weather they can be metaphysical or not. For this matter we suppose the two conditions.

• Physics is based on metaphysics.

• Physic is not based on metaphysics.

In the first case we can have the metaphysical theorem.

But for the second state there is struggle. Kant believed that we can bridge from sense data to metaphysics. because of the existence of the statement that were both priori and posteriori that he believed they are necessary. And obviously necessity is a metaphysical feature. But time unveiled the truth of this matter and now we know that there are no such statements. Then there is no bridge. The metaphysics is completely out of our reach. If we accept this, we should accept that physics cannot have any metaphysical consequences.

Then we can have a pure physics by condition that common sense be based on judgment not metaphysics. in this case our physics can be completely empty of any metaphysical claim, and also it results no metaphysical consequences.

The relationship between physics and metaphysics

In first separation

• Common sense is based on judgment, then physics has no metaphysical foundation.

• Common sense is based on theory, then physics is based on metaphysics.

And we have

• Physics has metaphysical consequences.

• Physics don’t have any metaphysical consequences.

But this is not the matter of unveiling the truth of physics, but to show different types of thinking about physics or considering it. One can assume that physics is based on judgments and experiments, thus this is empirical. This physics can only describe the world, and cannot explain that. It just says that the pattern of these phenomena are these. It cannot explain why they repeat or beyond the observable objects it cannot say anything. This lead to a philosophical approach to the science that tells the electrons are just useful stories about the world. This approach tells that we cannot say anything about the world, but the patterns that have happened. Then the physics that has no metaphysical base or consequence leads to instrumentalism. It really works for guessing the patterns of the objects and everything, but this tell nothing to us about the world. Those physics that lead to claims about the beginning of the world and its particles and its future, those physics definitely contain metaphysical elements. Somewhere they have assumed a metaphysical claim. cause we cannot bridge from sense data and judgment to the metaphysics.

But there is a matter remained unfold here. If common sense is judgment, then the unity of the objects is a judgment. How do we know that its consequence, I mean the consequence of judgments, don’t lead to those we call metaphysics?

To answer this question, I say that is impossible. Because the judgment is just telling that the arrangement must be so. For instance, in a 3D dimensional space with such characteristic. If one asks how the mind manage them, we answer through postulates raised from the practice. But can the practicality be a bridge to the reality? I really do not think so. Reality is out of our reach.

Then physics that has metaphysical consequences, contain metaphysical claims in basic.

Then we can have the both kind of physics. The metaphysical physics and the pure physics.

Conclusion

Anyway we have reached to the era of science and physics. Some believe that the physics is a completely different way of explaining the world and its phenomena that is more reliable and its consequences is definitely true. But pure physics, as we described carries nothing. for being able to explain the phenomena it need the metaphysical assumptions be added to it. The pure physics also exists by condition that common sense be result of judgment, not the theory or metaphysics. If the common sense be just judgements, then pure physics is nothing but the more precise and detailed judgements about the sense data. But we can conclude some metaphysics by adding some metaphysical assumption to our pure physics. For instance, by adding this claim that the laws of the nature in the past were the same as now, we can conclude that the world initiated at 13.4 billion years ago. Or with assuming that the quantum mechanics is necessarily true, we can conclude that the objects are constructed of quarks.

the end about the relationship between physics and metaphysics, I say that physics formulas in themselves have no metaphysical claim (unless the unity be theory that in that case common sense is also a theory and metaphysics), but we can assume some metaphysical claim and add them to the physical theory, in that case physical theory behaves like a machine and depend on the input claim, it gives us an output metaphysical theory. also physics and metaphysics are two distinct arenas that can collaborate for the philosophical aims.

In this article I am going to give a frame to think about world in that structure. I tried to this frame be as broad as possible, but of course it is not the ultimate answer, though there were no such answer so far. In this way, I will discuss some ideas that are not logically undoubtable or definitely true, but reliable as we thought till now. These ideas are somehow grounded on the image modern physics gave us and also has pierced in our intuitions. Combining these ideas, I seek an overall image about the world, consisting every aspect of that. Of course I mean not a theory that be the ultimate answer to the thousand years old questions, but giving a framework that breed new questions or may be inspiration for new practical investigations.

• physics

• Contemporary physics tells us that the world has initiated around 13.8 billion years ago from an implosion so called "big bang". After a fraction of second the binary particles shaped and then the story continued. It tends to an atomic view of the world. But something most is neglected in this view. The purpose. Those particles have travelled a 13.8 billion years' journey to shape us and the particles that constructed us and our world is those who shaped in 13.8 billion years ago. This whisper a theory. There are three main things. the particles, the law and the idea. Law makes particles to similar idea. In this way there is an idea for each one of us that law makes particles shapes that. Then there are particles, law in the middle and the connector and the idea at the end that particles goes toward the ideas and whole world is trying to become look like its idea. If we name origin of the law the wise, then the wise tries to shape the world as its idea, or it turns chaos to order, as a man who is making a vise.  Contemporary physics presented us this image of the world.

•  Wise

• Kant believed a kind of statement that is both necessary and priory. Like miracle, you can sit on your desk and predict the future. But gradually it has been revealed that these kind of statements were not necessary cause in newfound realm of physics like binary particles and in the large scale, it was seemed that those necessary statements were wrong. In this way many easily declared that the idea of Kant was wrong. I don’t heed the truth of the Kant claim, but something more important that is a clue for a striking idea. Why the Kant's statements are applicable in classical scale, where we grow up, but getting distance from this scale, those statements are not true? One can say that if the experimental tools be precise, those statements are wrong totally. But it never ruins my hypothesis. May our mind has shaped through millions of years' interaction with the nature and though we interact with nature in classical scale, consequently our logic or intuition fit with only that scale. But going beyond our ordinary senses, for example in quantum mechanics, we will find the phenomena's odd. I mean our mind works with Newtonian physics and thus we seek it priori. But nature shaped our mind through evolution process and because of that we find it intuitional. This idea is somehow based on a realistic point of view. But I seek a metaphysical claim inspired of this story. The nature is shaping our mind. This is versus of previous idea. In that idea, the wise were shaping the material, but in this story the material or nature has shaped the mind. But this is not mere material, cause those materials are well-formed with the wise. Then may we can say that our wise is mirror of part of the global wise. The term of mirror refers to a correspondence, though if global wise had another characteristic, then the nature we are dealing with had another shape and our mind or wise also. There is a point here that there can be different law or global wise that cause our nature we deal with in classical experience exact the same, if there is so, it is impossible to just through our mind or wise we unveil the global wise. Also, ours wises change the material. As if we are part of the global wise plan. We can say, the nature makes our wise, and we change nature. That’s like a cycle. Because again nature change our mind and we change nature. Now I am going to expand the notion wise or more broad Ego to whole elements. Then there will be a struggle or collaboration between global wise and the elements wises. Global wise changes material, material shapes element wise, element wise changes in nature. (sorry master for this part's weakness)

•         Mind

First of all, we have data. Data without judgment has no meaning. Even perceiving the absolute darkness need a judgment that say all part of that darkness have the same quality(color). From the word judgment I mean the interrelation between data. The mind receive data and analyze that. Like sewing net by those data. In this way our 3D space shapes. In other word the mind analyze data and find the unique meaningful interpretation of that is our perception of the world. Now the question is that is mind interfere in data and add somethings to them like a metaphysical postulate or it just analyze data? The other question is that is physics the expansion of interrelation relations or analyze in that way or it is poured metaphysics?

The third question is that are notions like love and hate metaphysical or interrelation? And at the end, why people understanding of world and notions by stepping further of common sense differs?

Our discussion here is not philosophy of physics, but I said these questions to show that to answering the question what is "true" or "right" depends on answering this question. If we believe that mind interfere in data, then the realm of metaphysics expands as whole understanding, then if we assume metaphysics out of reach, then the cognition is impossible. And if we assume there are interrelation judgments constructing common sense and physics, then the arena of probable cognition expands. And there are a moderate view that suggest both that some of our (physical) claims are interrelation and some are metaphysical.

Then we concluded that mind analyze data and categorize them as the 3D space and the objects within this and also more developed notions and point of views and philosophical thought and so on. Suppose that you perceive a flower. This flower has a place in mind that is identified through the flower interrelation judgments that mind do. Then obviously this is a complicated mathematical effort. Also notions and everything that can be named. First the mind makes the category that is common in society and then in identifying follows difficult pattern analysis to recognize them. In this way we can say we have data, mathematics, and perception. This is three realm of the world. Inspired of contemporary physics we name data, the material. Our mind translates what that happens in the material phase, to the perception phase by mean of mathematics. Each event also has 3 aspects. For instance, suppose a theater. It has a meaning in the material phase, a meaning in mathematical phase and a meaning in perception phase. In material phase like collide of materials and interaction between them. In material phase like symmetry and the even. And in the perception phase like comedy and tragedy. In fact, mind rip out what is really happening in material phase by means of mathematics. There is a question here. For each material mode is only one mode for two other phase or more than one? And the other is that what is the reason of different ideas and perspectives?

• Conclusion

• We discussed that world consists of material, wise and the idea.

• We discussed also that the mind is part of wise, mind changes nature and nature changes mind.

• There are three phase of world, material, mathematics, and perception.

Combining these two statements, 1 and 3, we conclude that we are perceiving somehow ideas. Then we are not perceiving the objects, but the idea those objects tends to.

5

In The Name Of God

Answer To the Gettier

Gettier has criticized the traditional Epistemology by a question. What if a man opposed with serious barn-facades except one that is the real barn. The man stands before the real barn and state that this is a barn. He is right. Also the process is justified and he believes in what he says. It seems all knowledge conditions are satisfied but still this is by chance.

I think something is neglected here. Let us investigate this matter.

Question1:

When the man says "this is a barn", what does he really mean?

• Believing that "this is a barn" in fact is a prediction. Uttering that "this is a barn" means to believe that if I go through the door of that I will see the walls and maybe some crops pilled.

Then when the man says" this is a barn" in fact he is predicting. Now the knowledge of that is due to the validity of the prediction. As we know, there is no prediction that is validated but we trust in the regularity of the nature. Then we must say that the statement "this is a barn" is not justified at all. Consequently, the validity of the proposition is by chance as Gettier has previously suggested.

More extreme

When the man is outside the barn, he can't say this is a barn as we said. He can say "this looks like a barn front view". When he goes inside the barn also he cannot say this is a barn, he must say" this is just like the interior part of a barn". Neither can he say that all these look like a barn. Because the image he saw from outside was for one minute ago and what he perceive now is for now, and the unifying of these two is a proposition that needs validation. Also he cannot say that is crop, because may it taste like apple. Then he must say "that looks like crop".

We see that the man cannot say anything about that barn but to say that looks like this and that.

The verb "look like" has hidden in itself the fact of data loss. Then opposing the real world we cannot have any knowledge (or at least definite knowledge known as true justified belief).

Now I am going to survey this matter a bit more profoundly.

Opposing a phenomenon we always include it in a notion. For instance that man included the bar-facades into the notion barn wrong. Of course we always confront data and we presuppose the rest of that kind's data. For instance when we see an apple we expect the sweetness of an apple in the act of eating it rather than bitterness of ale. But is this justified? Of course not.

Another problem is that in a moment we cannot perceive an object's whole data, but part of that. Then we unify those data through time and we say these all are originated from one, for instance an apple.

But unifying these data in an object is also a proposition that needs justification. That is a belief.

Therefore, firstly:

Perceiving part of data from an object (supposed object) we are not allowed to assign that data origination from a whole like an apple, since this is not knowledge, but guess.

And secondly:

Gathering the whole data occurs in a period of time. We cannot be sure that all originated from one object. This unification is a metaphysical assumption, and then is out of knowledge.

Even if we can perceive the whole data at once, we meet a dilemma.

The dilemma is:

• We have part of the data from an object, and then no knowledge can be justified.

• We have the whole data from an object, and then the knowledge we have is a tautology

In fact the Gettier problem is revealing that there can be no justification and thus no knowledge. (Remember Hume)

Question2:

When the man says "this is a barn", what does he really mean?

The man says "this is a barn". Suppose that he perceive all the data at once or he is allowed to unify all perceptions through time. How he says "this is a barn"?

It seems he match this perception by a type and include the perception into that type.

Now there is a question here. Of course not all barns are the same. The old puzzle of recognizing the Donkey emerges here. What if we cut the tail of the Donkey? Or remove its leg. How far can we go and still recognize that it is the donkey and more importantly, what are the true criteria of a donkey in the mind?

And in our case, what are the true criteria and set of characteristic of a barn?

This question leads us to some neuroscientific and logical discussions. But in this article, the thing I want to conclude is that the process of distinguishing objects that Gettier has pointed at as knowledge may be a biological process and not completely permitted to be discussed as the logical or priori subject.

But it is obvious that the process of distinguishing or reaching knowledge of types is not as easy as to just distinguishing some elements in the perception and judge by them.

Then even if we have the whole data, relating that to a type is problematic and can't be named knowledge as true justified belief. Because the word "justified" means the process and the process of relating the kind to pack of data at least is not fully known.

Question3:

When the man says "this is a barn", what does he really mean?

The man is standing in front of the barn and perceives some data. How does he separate the data to the "barn" and "non-barn"? Of course he perceives much more data than he relates to the barn or that looks like a barn. And this separation is a process that occurs subconsciously. But it can be asked whether epistemologically, this distribution of data to the objects is valid or not. We can also doubt in the distribution of data in our subconscious perception analysis.

I am not referring to the doubt as to match it to reality, but as to match it to a wholly well-organized and coherence structure we assign to the world or perceptions.

Now the clue of the subject is slipping through my hand. Now let's not go farther and see what we can say about the person in Gettier's problem.

Question4:

What is happening to the man when saying "this is a barn"?

1) The man perceives some data.

2) Then, through an unknown process he divides the data to barn and non-barn.(division)

3) Then, he moves from the data he perceive to a larger bundle called a barn (expansion)

4) Then he relate this bundle to the notion data unclearly (relating to language)

There are three steps that are not rationally understood. 1) DIVISION 2) EXPANSION 3) RELATION

With these processes mechanisms unveiled, we cannot say we have justification for any relation between perception and language.

And it seems to be the duty of an iinterdisciplinary branch to survey the matter of knowledge.

Conclusion

Gettier has challenged the knowledge by giving an example mixing chance with notion justification. But at least in that example that was not justification at all. But if we consider that more broadly, he is suggesting the invalidity of the moving from perceived data to a larger bundle. Here something revealed in the notion of justification, thus knowledge that had been hidden. Justification is bounded to notion prediction.

Hence knowledge as it is investigated in epistemology is not far from the notion of science that is pursuing in philosophy of science. And whatever doubt and problem we are opposed in defining science and proving its validity, seem to exist in dealing with the notion of knowledge as true justified belief.

The intersection of these two notions is in prediction. Both knowledge and science are bound to it; in the case of science more direct and in case of knowledge hidden in justification and validity.

On the other hand, knowledge is related to the brain and the way it works and interacts with nature. Of course the process of neuroscience that reaches to any results, itself needs justification. But, we can have some naturalistic epistemology.

Anyway, we could construct our philosophical investigations on a more reliable and firm ground with more clarified words.

Hamze Bagheri

FIRST THEORY:

THE DETERMINED WORLD

Axioms of this theory:

• Only materials are related to materials

• The relations in the nature are necessary

• Human consists of ego and material

• Human body consist of material

If we accept these three axioms, we are nothing but audiences in this world. Because our body consist of material and the materials are ruled by the laws and relations that exist amongst the materials. So the world is determined. In this theory what we call "will" is nothing but the ego's predictions. But as always these predictions were accompanied us, we think that our awareness about our bodies one second later position is will. But in fact the ego has sort of knowledge about body and can predict it. If there is so, what we call the ego is so vast and has some aspects that are hidden from us. In this case, the process of thinking also is a materialistic process, because explicitly the thinking cause change in the world. Also impressions like rage and love and so on are materialistic. But our comprehensions from them are not materialistic.

Question1) how the ego knows the body?

 I don’t know the answer.

Question2) we discussed about the levels of wills, how them comply with this theory?

In our discussion, if there is no will, there is no comprehension (in different levels). But in this theory for instance a baby come into being determinately. We say that there are two conditions. One, there is no will. Two, the will that consequent to the being and comprehension are parallel to the determined process.  It means that there is possible for a human that do actions and live, but don’t comprehend and don’t exist in heart (in other word they are walking dead). These humans only react and have a physical life. May this is the difference between people in morality and tendency to the knowledge. This result is not far from my intuition.

SECCOND THEORY:

THE WORLD AS DEMMOCRACY

Before explaining this theory I must say a story. Darwin's cousin was a fan of democracy. In those time there was a struggle amongst the fan of democracy and party of the republic. One day he was wandering in butchers market that noticed a match is going to start. The match was so that there was a cow that one who guessed the most exact number to its weight would win the cow. The Darwin's cousin found that match best thing to judge amongst the democracy and republic. He recorded both ordinary people (that were many) and the butchers propose and average them. The result was odd. The average of ordinary people guesses was more exact that the butcher's one. Then based on this experiment he concluded that democracy will lead to more accurate and reasonable choices.

We don’t know how it happens. We assume this odd result as our principle with the difference that we replace the notion objective reality by the law of the nature.

Suppose that our world consist of primary particles (for example atoms). We name these primary elements the first elements and the zero whole. These elements are gathered and constructed and have made wholes (as molecules). These wholes are wholes related to the first elements and are elements related to the third elements or second wholes. This process continues till we reach to the whole that is not part of a whole or is the only element (whole world).

Principles

• In whole world the material obey the ego

• There is no necessary relation in the nature

• Human and all elements in all levels consist of ego and material

• Ever ego tend to obey rule and tend to disobey

• There exist rule in the all egos

• All egos has their influences in the material and the thing that will happen is the combination of their wills

Definitions

• The law is the average of the act of all elements in the world (in one level) in the condition that there is not any ego except the their basic ago above them

• Basic ego is the ego that rule all elements of one level in all wholes

• Element ego is ego that rule the elements that construct that element

• Nature means the average of the action of one level's elements in a whole(like atoms in a person)

• Law and nature have levels. For each level of elements there is a law and many natures.

We have the worlds that are within each other's. For example, suppose a person. We want to explain him by this theory. At first layer he/she consists of binary elements (for example atoms or strings, whatever).

Each element in this level act (not completely willingly and not completely determined), and the average leads to the nature of this level.

This level has a nature in the body and has a nature in whole world and also has a law by the definition. Also, this level has an ego inside body that we call it first partial ego and has an ego in whole world that we call it first whole ego. 

In this picture inside the shape is human and outside is whole world. The lines are the natures.

Suppose a binary particle. Till now it is ruled by three egos, Ego of itself, first partial ego, and first whole ego.

In the next level we have the second element and first whole (for example molecule). This level also has the nature in the body and a nature in whole world and also has a rule. This element has its own ego, and the second partial ego and second whole ego. It ruled by its ego and its particles ego and first and second partial and whole ego. In this way we reach to the organs like brain and stomach and ovary and etc. this organs are ruled by many egos from different levels and also upper levels. The first particle also is influenced by the high level egos. Then we reach to the human ego. After human ego is society ego (and may whole living creature's ego). Our ego is ruled by all of them for instance whole world ego and itself and binary egos of whole world, our body and individuals.

• In a person or thing may some levels of ego are weak or dead and in this case we see disorder in that whole.

• Each level of the ego in the world has its own will that force to the all egos. For example I cannot be in two places in one instance that may is the will of the first whole and partial ego, I cannot fly that may is the will of second whole and partial ego and etc.

• More the member of the particles the act will be more near to the law.

• There are two approaches in this theory, one is determinately and the other is willingly. In the determinate analysis there is combination amongst laws and natures that could be evaluated. But in willingly analysis there are elements and particles that struggle. The question is which of them is true analysis? The determined one or willingly one? 

Consequents

• In the low levels of the elements, there is chaos and going upward to the elements that consist of many elements we see the disorder decrease and order increase. Disorder means that you see rarely similar behavior from those level's elements. And in high levels of the elements you see the similarity. This is because of the number that an element consists of. Referring to the cow's match, more the number of proposes more precise result.

• All kind of element in one level has an ego that rules them. For example all minds have an ego that rules them all.

• each element is ruled by whole world

• each ego has its own will and comprehension and being

Predictions 

• the theory predict that more we focus in material, we oppose with more disorder and more we notice bigger scales, we meet more regular behavior.

• There is relation between elements of a level, such cells or brains or ovaries, humans etc. because they are governed by one ego.

• There must be difference between an element in a system (for example an atom or a cell) and an element outside a system.

• There must be detected difference between molecules in an alive cell and a dead one.

• There must be difference between elements of different elements.

• Atoms in a corpse must be different with the atoms in an alive person.

• The morality of the characters maust influence their particles.

.

.

.

In the explanation of human kind

Humans consist of many elements, thus egos and wills. And they are influenced by so many natural egos and egos like wisdom, lust, love and so on. I think this is in our hand to how manipulating these wills and how treat them. There are two ideas about the human kind. Some people think all things are determined and we cannot escape our doom and other think we are free to choose. 

I think none of these ideas is right. I think this is up to us whether to be free or not. Different people live in different levels of being, comprehension and will. Some of them are in the level of organs and their life is the combination of their elements struggle and the extension of their past, some live in the level that can stand against their determined future and rule their elements and some live in higher levels of being like level of society or higher. These people can change the course of future for whole society. I think this is up to us to be which of them. The thing that makes philosophy more valuable is that through philosophy one can raise up his/her shoulder, reach to higher levels of being, comprehension and will and stand against his determined future. This makes philosophy necessary for everyone.

Hamze Bagheri

7

IN THE NAME OF GOD

"Imitator tongue, deceiving eyes and fallible ears, these three govern people."

I was sitting at the bus stop waiting for the bus when two men discussing attracted my attention. First, I thought that must have been a serious matter, because they were talking in a really solemn and drastic way. But, in a minute I understood that they were talking about soccer. The conversation was about a soccer player that I guess played in the middle and was not a good one in their idea. Then I remembered that once I had been thinking about a subject that had had occupied my mind for some days. There had been a question:"Why do people watch soccer?" “What is in this game that people are so eager to?”, and more oddly that “why this is not just fun for them, but a serious matter?” After all, the results of the plays are not other than some specific scores: 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2 and rarely 5-1, 6-1 …

The source of attraction for them was of course not those results. Otherwise, we would have met an extraordinary excellence in mathematics in the society.

 First I thought this might have been a matter of money. For instance, suppose that a soccer player earns 50$ for each match only if he plays well. In that case, the soccer federation would have to arrange its tournaments based on the city’s bus schedules. The key question here is that, would anyone watch football in that case? I thought it would be people considering there is a lot of money in there, that leads to this conclusion that there must be an important matter and also through paying attention to that they assume themselves as important men and part of that, feeling importance and involvement in that market and blah blah blah. 

Then I thought it couldn’t have been the answer to this question: There must be more important reasons beyond this. The second theory for explaining the phenomenon is one that belongs to Mr Milan Conrad. He believes that people define themselves in one of these two ways:

Some subtract everything that define them from themselves, even their own body. This is the way of subtraction. And some in the other hand add many things to themselves and say I am all these. This is the way of addition. For instance, they say I am my religion, I am my country, I am my ideology, I am my party, I am my race, and sometimes I am my soccer team. And when these things are insulted or criticized, it is like they have been attacked. Not important how they choose or accept these identities. 

Honestly, I should say that, it is a good answer. But it didn’t satisfy me, because I thought that there must have been a deeper truth beneath that. I remembered a quote from Parmenides 

"Imitator tongue, deceiving eyes and fallible ears, these three govern people."

Then I came to an answer to this question "why people watch soccer?" This is all about the imitator tongue. Why we imitate? May we imitate just because we are afraid of loneliness. For example, consider a match that is being watched live by a company of around 200 million people. When an individual involves an experience that is in common with 200 million other people, he or she feels healthy. Because being ill is equal to being in the minority. For instance, old age is not a disease, but preside oldness is one and also is known as a bad one. Not all people dare to be special. Some other also try their best only to be special, not themselves. Actually, we humans are somehow “mad”. Anyway, coming to the conclusion that we are afraid of loneliness or confronting a fact alone, I asked again, why?

Suppose that you are lost in a desert in the absolute darkness and all by yourself. Clearly it is frightening. Then assume your little sister is in this situation with you taking your hand. If the fear would not vanish, at least it would decrease dramatically. Why? If the fear is for the avoiding the probable danger naturally, that something could have harm you, of course it can harm you accompanied with your little sister too. I think this is not the matter of avoiding danger. Let's survey what differs between the two conditions: with or without your sister. In absence of your little sister, if you see or feel something, you cannot judge whether that is real or not, but in her presence, you can judge and your sister is your evidence too, if she also observes that, that is real and otherwise is not. Let me explain it more. Suppose that you are sitting inside a chamber, a glass of water in front of you. Someone comes in. what if they cannot see the glass of water. This will be terrifying. This is like this, when we are alone we cannot discern differences between reality and illusion. Of course the confirmation by some other person is not a pure reason for the existence of an object, but culturally or maybe evolutionary psychologically we assume what is observed or comprehended by many to be real. But this is not philosophically acceptable as a proof for the existence of the reality. Also our mind is trained or set to consider the sensual data received through seeing real. Because of this we are not scared of being alone at day, but at night there is no visual data and it causes distress. In fact, you scare yourself by your imagination rather than darkness. 

I told that as a metaphor to illustrate the matter of loneliness and the fear of darkness.

In fact, we all live in a darkness greater than the physical darkness - the ignorance. We humans were supposed not to know anything and to wander in the dark. Let me explain that. I am talking about notions or more precise, metaphysics that is the great part of our conceptual world. To give you an example, the notion of God, love, Karma, after-life, truth, etc. We are blind opposing these notions and all we can do is to imagine or at most believe. In the darkness we imagine about what behind the appearance of this world exists. And here it begins. Being scared of falling in delusion, people seek whether other people think like them or not, or metaphorically, see what they see or not. Maybe even I am writing this essay for this reason. No one can see God, but many people cannot bear this blindness and they confirm what they do not see (for instance God, or any ideological material). They pretend they do see, just because others are inclined to say that, “Yeah, I can see that clearly". In this way, one who imagine like you, comfort you, because they are your affirmation that you are not mad or in illusion. This is called friendship. And one who does not imagine like you, is your denial, and the evidence of your being in illusion and madness. This is called, “enmity”. I think many wars was because of this matter.

We human are living in the dark, and round some ideas and imaginations about the truth we gather in groups. Your group member is your confirmation, therefore the other group members are your denial, and thus enemy. Sorry, but like sheep that are in the storm for avoiding the frozen air, gather and stick together, we humans, gather and stick together around the ideology frightened by the frigid and horrible of pitch darkness. The thing that is perhaps the mother of creativity or being creator. Rather than confronting it bravely, many prefer to hide in the groups and lie that they see those ideas and imaginations in the dark. We will be lost in this way by the first lie, to confirm what we are not sure about, and to confirm to see what we actually do not. 

The soccer is also like this. This is a way of spending time that is approved by many, and then delivered as the truth. Many say, “Yeah I can see, this is valuable”, although they see nothing.

These kind of people are most afraid of being different. It makes them feel mad.  

  Now, let us consider this subject from another point of view. Consider a patient who suffers cancer. If they were the only ones who had cancer, that would be terrible for terrible. But if another one with this disease is with him, it will be comforting for them. We are afraid of confronting anything on our own. And loneliness not only does cause fear, but also leads to agony. To give you an example, being homeless is horrible in this world, but if all people slept outside for a part of the year, then it would be less bothering. Agony, fear and loneliness are somehow brothers. 

At the end I should say that, we humans are lost in the dark, each one holding a candle inside. Some follow their own candle and some are distracted by the darkness and chaos outside. But, I think that the best way is to look inside, because outside is covered by darkness and there exist no signs. 

Another thing I would like to say is about love. Sometimes in life we take each another’s hands in the dark, not alone and fantasizing anymore. This is a valuable moment. 

At the end, I would like to say that, I prefer to confront the darkness rather than stick to the mopes as a coward. To be all the legislator, accused, judge and accuser, both the slave and master. To be a creator.

Walking in the dark is human’s burden. And that is beautiful.  

Hamze Bagheri